Seagate: Industry Not Ready for 3TB HDD Capacity

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
when you say 20 years ago do you mean 30? and also when you say that windows xp only recognizes 990mb do you mean GB?
 
Even if Seagate comes out with a 3Tera HDD I wouldn't buy from them. I had loyalty with them but seem to have a knack for crappy firmware and high failure rate HDD.
 
Why would only the first 990GB be seen? It seems like it would be the opposite with the first 2.1TB being seen and the last 990GB not being seen. I guess I'm headed over to Wikipedia.
 
Pretty sure it's just typos. WinXP should see 2.1TB and 990GB is unseen while 1980 is 30 years ago. Unless they mean LBA was brought out in 1990, which seems more logical as CHS mapped drives were still in use back then. I can't quire remember that far back.
 
[citation][nom]mayne92[/nom]Even if Seagate comes out with a 3Tera HDD I wouldn't buy from them. I had loyalty with them but seem to have a knack for crappy firmware and high failure rate HDD.[/citation]

Good point. Anyone else have someone cry when you tell them how much it will cost to get their data recovered?
 
[citation][nom]adamspc[/nom]Good point. Anyone else have someone cry when you tell them how much it will cost to get their data recovered?[/citation]

Back up...
 
If you make it, they will come. You are going to make to produce it eventually, so you need the machinery to fabricate them. If they are available, competitors will have to compete and develop technology. If you build it, people with new systems will use it, and people with big data needs (Big online storage companies) then hardware to utilize it will quickly come. The longer you delay, the more you hold back the whole industry. Everyone is waiting on you.
 
Is this really true? When i formatted my 1.5TB it Windows asked me if I wanted to use GUID. So who exactly isnt ready for this?
 
I guess until they can get their acts together I'll just have to rely on putting 10 hdds together in a raid configuration :)

Btw, considering raid can make your data safer due to being able to replace 1 drive and recreate the img. would anyone else be a bit scared of putting that much data on one drive?
 
I thought the 2.1TB limit is just if you want that partition to be 'active'/bootable.. otherwise it is fine?

Would creating a 2TB partition and then a 1TB partition (being 2 primary paritions on a 3TB drive) solve the problem?
 
How is this news?
I got 2 2TB green hard drives on windows 7, that as far as I know do not
work (or at least are not recognize properly) under windows XP, so then why a more or bigger drive could?

Pretty much anyone running windows 7 with a PC 2 years or "younger" should be able to run/install a 3TB hard drive without a problem.

I just want WD to announce their 5TB hard drives, but we might have to wait a little longer for this.

note: my 2 2TB drives only have 1.81TB available, so my question is,
how much a 3TB would really have available for use?
I'm guessing around 2.6TB of actual space.
 
[citation][nom]mayne92[/nom]Even if Seagate comes out with a 3Tera HDD I wouldn't buy from them. I had loyalty with them but seem to have a knack for crappy firmware and high failure rate HDD.[/citation]

Personally I've used Seagate drives since 06 and have yet to have a single failure. Hitachi is actually the only brand drive to ever fail on me, I've got a few working Western Digital and Samsung drives too.
 
XP is probably only recognizing the 990MB because of some type of integer overflow issue. Binary numbers have a limited range of values and if you exceed the range it starts counting over again from zero. XP can probably only keep track up to the 2.1TB limit currently in place, once you go over that it starts over counting up from zero until it reaches that 990MB figure.
 
[citation][nom]tntomek[/nom]Is this really true? When i formatted my 1.5TB it Windows asked me if I wanted to use GUID. So who exactly isnt ready for this?[/citation]

Only problem is you can't boot to GUID Partition Table without EFI, which isn't supported by a lot of hardware.

But a drive that size is probably being used for storage anyways.
 
it's probably not the best idea to store 3TB of data on one drive. and other than mega-storage centers, i don't see why consumers would need 3TB of space in a single drive. i mean i guess if that's what you really want, then go for it, but i just don't the point.
 
danwat1234 is correct.
One active partition can be 2TB. You can have up to four active partitions, so in theory you could take an 8TB hard drive and partition it into four 2TB sections and everything will work fine on current hardware.
 
I just ordered 2 2TB drives and wish I could afford 2 more. I am a consumer, I have tons of photographs, movies and music archives. Like many here though, I will never buy another Seagate drive. I will wait until someone else sells a 3TB drive or larger.
 
Oh well, i just hope we learn from our mistakes and prepare for the future now so we don't bottleneck ourselves as much as we did back then.

That's if technology has much headroom left since there's been a slowdown.
(Cmon singularity!)
 
[citation][nom]haze4peace[/nom]danwat1234 is correct.One active partition can be 2TB. You can have up to four active partitions, so in theory you could take an 8TB hard drive and partition it into four 2TB sections and everything will work fine on current hardware.[/citation]

Just a quick clarification on this:
Assuming a single drive is used, you have have up to four primary partitions, one of them being marked as active.
 
I have plenty of reasons for a 3tb drive (currently have a total of 7.75tb on my server), but it looks like it'll be a while. For now I'll just enjoy the ever droppint 2tb prices. A drobo with 5 of these would be sweet. 12tb available with redundancy. Nice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom